While listening to a Wayne Dyer CD of a seminar, Barbara finally "got" the concept of how justification keeps us trapped. (His book "Excuses Begone" deals vividly with this concept. Download 18 good excuses and offsetting affirmations from Scribd.com. You might also enjoy Dyer's website. )

She said that reasons, excuses, justifications were all arguments for not changing.

"It's hard to change." "It is just too difficult." (I am just not capable enough to do it. I don't have the energy to do it.) "I've tried everything." "You just don't know what it's like to be this way - and it's impossible to change." (All "affirmations" that Barbara made in our discussions.)

IMPOSSIBILITY IS NOT THE ONLY POSSIBILITY

Since a person believes "it's an impossible problem," then it becomes an impossible problem since that person has cut off the possibility of a solution in this "self-fulfilling prophecy."

She further stated: It's like we almost become determined to prove that "it can't happen." We become invested in it, like it is part of our identity.

Basically, it is true that you might as well Play The Cards You Wuz Dealt - make sure you've got that idea down - and then drop every story, never to be told again.

TOTAL VIGILANCE

She "got" that there was a positive, good payoff to being "hypervigilant" to that type of thinking and that it would be best to not allow it.

His term, if I heard her right, was to engage in "total vigilance". And vigilance for a great purpose is good vigilance. But hypervigilance of the brain for spotting danger and negatives is a harmful practice, overdoing the healthy functioning of our danger system to such a degree that we create harm and constant alarm such that our bodies and minds do not function properly. (I had told Barbara that hypervigilance in the case of an overactive alarm system was harmful, so it is useful to make this distinction here. Just as "control" is neither bad nor good in itself and that it's "badness" or "goodness" depends upon how it is used, vigilance can be good or bad dependent on how it is used and for what purpose.)

Indeed, total vigilance - and nothing short of that - is what you deserve to give yourself, not allowing any of the harmful negative in, to the extent possible.

THE BIG TEST

From Dyer's discussion, she "got" the idea that Byron Katie uses to test whatever you say:

"Is it true?"

And the extension of that, which requires a more rigorous conclusion: "Is it absolutely true?".

When one says it is hard or impossible to change, one cannot say that is absolutelytrue.

But on the other hand, one cannot say that one will change and have that statement be absolutely true. (Many of us do believe that it is possible for anyone to change. But that is a belief, though a strong one. However, it is not one that has proven to be always true in each instance. But it, I think, is true most of the time.)

But one can say that it might be a good idea to allow 'that the possibility one couldchange' is possible?

Is that true?

Well, if you can't prove that it's impossible, there must be some possibility that it is possible, so it is true that it is possible. And, I assert that, it is also possible that one could change easily and quickly. It doesn't matter if the latter is a "maybe not", for there still is a "maybe so" - and that is the definition of a "possibility."

DON'T BE CONCERNED ABOUT "THE HOW"

It's only a question of finding the "how".

Barbara did point out that Dyer said "don't ever worry about the how" as "the how" will (likely) appear at some point if you are allowing for the possibility. I would add that it will come up especially if you express intention to achieving some specific thing (even a clear "I want" will increase the likelihood of the brain getting to work on it).

Although Dyer sometimes sounds to me to be a bit mystical (mystical may or may not be valid), the idea that the brain will very likely be able to figure out a solution to any solvable problem presented to it appears to jibe with science over and over and over and over...

But few of us have the faith that it will happen, at least not at the level of "tomorrow the sun will rise".

But it has a huge statistical probability of occurring, so 99% faith is justified, I think. It may be true that your brain might not figure it out, as it might lack the knowledge exposure, but it is true that if you include in the "how" the accessing of other resources that can be helpful you can achieve virtually any result.

So, she says if you allow for the possibility and let the how come up, then there is a good chance you'll recover (which is alot better than the idea of "can't" or "won't").

THE "CAN'T" BECOMES PART OF ONE'S IDENTITY

My whole identify has been that I am a person who hyperventilates and who can't have social interaction and therefore I will be unhappy (or I am an "unhappy person", as an identity). And also that identity included that I am ugly, not smart, not capable, a little girl, a victim. From that identity, there is no possibility, by definition (actually self fulfilling prophecy).

One of the key logic problems lies in assuming that one is "fixed and permanent", not changeable. That is a ludicrous, completely not true belief!!!!!!!

The actual truth is that we are not fixed and we are definitely not "permanent", even close to the level of a table or lamp (which eventually deteriorate too). The Buddha talks about this very viewpoint of our trying to rely on the false assumption of permanence as one of the key sources of unnecessary suffering and struggle (actually all suffering is unnecessary).

ANOTHER "UNTRUTH"

Although slightly different than the above concept, the following also shows how we create conclusions from assumptions and beliefs.

In life, there is content and there is context.

We all have sufficient content in our lives to be happy, but only if we have a context based on truth.

If one has a context of "there is abundance in the world and that we have more than enough capability" (which would pass the truth test), then one would look at the content in a way that produces happiness.

If one has a context based on false beliefs, from bad programming in life, that "I'm not good enough, there is lack in the world", then the same content as was in the world of a happy person would create "I'm ugly and I'm stupid. I'm not what I should be, life is difficult", all statements "proving" the context (which is actually a belief system). Change the context and you change your life forever!

Use the The Truth Test to make sure you aren't living in Untruth Land, aka Fairy Tale Land.

YOU TOLD ME THIS BEFORE, BUT NOW...

Barbara: You and Sam have been telling me the same thing, but it finally clicked with this different way of making the point...

AND, ONCE AGAIN...

Until Barbara fully follows the program, she'll continue to "fall off the wagon", with occasional bright flashes of realization. Currently, she continues to throw lots and lots of story into the conversations - and stories are almost all "sucks", that are built for a negative purpose, sucking all the energy out of life. Stories, justifications, excuses - they don't work for anything - they just fill up the space that could've been filled with a dream, a possibility, a bit of gratitude, something happy, etc. and etc.

RETRAINING ABOUT POSSIBILITIES

Watch The Introduction To The Landmark Forum, "classroom" video section, click on "see it in action" and click on the lower left picture.

Most of the "life training" classes cover "possibility thinking" extensively as one of the major shifts that can be made to create a life that one lives at a higher level. The most available training is through an organization holding the most seminars around the world: Landmark Education.